Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Honestly, who cares if Iran gets nukes. That is so 1950ths. The nuclear program is just an excuse to confront the state. Even North Korea barely able to feed its population is said to aim for nukes. So if war is declared against Iran then because you want so and think it would be promising.

War must be avoided at all cost. We need to stop the practice of responding to international crises by initiating military interventions. President Obama has this right. Lets not encourage a return to unilateral or bi-lateral exploits to attack other sovereign nations with whom we have differences. Obama's approach to applying sanctions, diplomatic pressures, and world community outrage is the right way. Think defensively, not offensively. Defend our homeland to the hilt, but what happens on foreign lands will ultimately be the decision of the leadership of those countries. Intervening militarily will not change that, only widen the conflict.

Why do we assume it is okay for the US and Israel to have nuclear weapons but not Iran. There seems to be this assumption these are good countries who would not do something "evil" such as we did when we over through a democratically elected president of Iran because he wanted to take back the oil fields that the UK took, or invade Iraq under the pretense that there WMDs when the CIA clearly knew there were no WMDS, or plan to invade Cuba and Venzuela, or support Frances colonial efforts in Vietnam, and the when that didn't work fight the war ourselves under the delusion of containment which Robert McNamara made clear in the Fog of War was a delusion.

See Noam Chomsky: The Week the World Stood Still
http://www.guernicamag.com/daily/noam-chomsky-the-week-the-world-stood-still/

I would say that time is on the side of the world community, not Iran.

So a general statement of broad principle should be put on the table for all to see. Then let it sit. Let the Iranians deal with the issue of making a serious counter-proposal.

Military strikes against hardened facilities could prove very difficult and ineffective. A phase one military campaign of broad strikes aimed at sowing confusion in the Iranian economy might be much more effective. After such a strike, further detailed assessments of where and what makes up the Iranian nuclear program could be made resulting in a phase two that would be much more focused and effective.

Any military operation should have as a first objective that of keeping the Iranian leadership off balance and only secondarily to disable the nuclear capability. That would leave the Iranian leadership and the Iranian people with the knowledge that rebuilding the nuclear capability would be even more expensive a second time.

If the data on Iran's recent economic difficulties is true, then I find it impossible that they would not change course unless either they're a) maniacally determined or b) closer to the goal of nuclear weaponry than anyone thinks.

The way to curb this programme truly is by a true international coalition with unambiguous support from Russia and China. US needs to lead the effort and play chess to get everyone on board.